Is being black a right?

[SwimExpert]

I hate humanity a little more every day. So, gender is a choice, race is now a choice. That transanimal thread is starting to look like a real thing.

Rachel Dolezal has a right to be black Opinion - CNN.com

The commentary writer has some very nice thoughts:

>> Dolezal's case forces us to examine our society, which made her feel that passing for a black woman was her best choice in her advocacy for African American issues. She forces us to consider whether our biology or our action is more important to identity, and should we act in ways that honor our chosen identity in meaningful ways. We should not have to be slaves to the biological definition of identity, and we should not use race or gender identities as weapons to punish one another. <<
​

I haven't seen this transanimal thing yet but hell, kids play at that, and kids are wiser in ways than we are. And totems have been a part of human culture as long as humans have. For what it's worth.

Let's please stop wading into an ocean of absurdity in an attempt to justify this woman's lies. She was selling a false narrative. She made up lies about her parentage, her family, everything, and she tried to parade herself as some kind of social victim on top of it. Identity is not a choice. It is a fact that befalls us as mere incident to our existence.

The irony is that all of this nonsense exists in our society today because we don't accept diversity, we don't accept the choices people make, and do continue to measure the worth of a person based on their adherence to prejudiced conceptualizations of how well they fit into our own template configurations.

 

[SwimExpert]

I hate humanity a little more every day. So, gender is a choice, race is now a choice. That transanimal thread is starting to look like a real thing.

Rachel Dolezal has a right to be black Opinion - CNN.com

You can't let this shit get to you. There are idiots. But most people are fairly awesome. And the idiots have such little impact on my life or yours......fuck 'em.

The whole Rachel Dolezal thing I have been pretty dismissive us. But this Op-Ed articulated something I've seen brewing to the surface in the passing social media snips and headlines that I've seen. And it really does disturb me.

Once upon a time "wigger" was a pejorative to describe white people who "acted" black (with the subtly underlying context that they were acting incorrectly by liking certain musical and fashion styles). It always pissed me off because not only because it tied black identity with the pejorative "******," but because the idea of "acting" a certain ethnicity was insanely stupid. I thought it was a childish idea that had long been left behind. That it was something that continued to exist only in a rare fringe of idiots, and in the mocking of said idiots when they should be encountered.

It seems, however, this to the contrary, this insidious nonsense has been seeping into minds far and wide, and is gaining a foothold in those places of human thought that were once occupied by reason and wisdom. It's a very sad state of affairs.

 

[Liffy]

I hate humanity a little more every day. So, gender is a choice, race is now a choice. That transanimal thread is starting to look like a real thing.

Rachel Dolezal has a right to be black Opinion - CNN.com

The commentary writer has some very nice thoughts:

>> Dolezal's case forces us to examine our society, which made her feel that passing for a black woman was her best choice in her advocacy for African American issues. She forces us to consider whether our biology or our action is more important to identity, and should we act in ways that honor our chosen identity in meaningful ways. We should not have to be slaves to the biological definition of identity, and we should not use race or gender identities as weapons to punish one another. <<
​

I haven't seen this transanimal thing yet but hell, kids play at that, and kids are wiser in ways than we are. And totems have been a part of human culture as long as humans have. For what it's worth.

Let's please stop wading into an ocean of absurdity in an attempt to justify this woman's lies. She was selling a false narrative. She made up lies about her parentage, her family, everything, and she tried to parade herself as some kind of social victim on top of it. Identity is not a choice. It is a fact that befalls us as mere incident to our existence.

The irony is that all of this nonsense exists in our society today because we don't accept diversity, we don't accept the choices people make, and do continue to measure the worth of a person based on their adherence to prejudiced conceptualizations of how well they fit into our own template configurations.

I can kind of agree with this. I haven't followed the story that much, and if she actually did all that then she's out of line. I can accept someone for saying they identify themselves ethnically as a black person. Being black of any race is more than skin color, there are other biological factors involved and let's not forget psychological factors which factors are more important to race than physical appearances. but my main point is why care how someone identifies themselves? Do you know why she said she's black? I can't imagine what that poor lady is going through to resign.

 

[blackhawk]

Apparently everything today is a right pretty soon we will have people taking a dump outside on the lawn because they are really a dog.

 

[Rozman]

Trans this and Trans that....
Trans Gender
Trans Racial.....

How about
Trans Species?

I wanna be Trans Cat....
Like David Bowie doing Cat people....

 

[Liffy]

Apparently everything today is a right pretty soon we will have people taking a dump outside on the lawn because they are really a dog.

there are certain limits to this shit dude. Bruce Jenner is probably gonna be allowed in female restrooms soon. Why? She's probably gonna undergo the full transformation. If he/she doesn't then he/she ain't as courageous as everyone been campaigning about. Actually quite honestly if someone undergoes a transformation into a dog where people believe they're a dog like some who never knew Caitlyn was actually Bruce on the Vanity cover I don't see why the person can't shit in public.
I think the real issue is 'Self-identity' tolerance.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No. Being black is not a right, and I wish black people would quit shoving their perverse choices down our throats.

Wait, now Rachel Dozell is black again? Or did you just blame blacks for what a white girl did?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Another case of something new being labeled "liberal" and therefore the dummies think this is a part of the Democratic platform

 

[Pogo]

I went to bed at this point last night, picking up here...

Sorry, I mean the Media Machine, as you referred to in hopes of its coverage of racism. I'm saying as long as Media sees that it makes this kind of splash, even a silly nothing story like this Rachel character, they know they have a hot button to push. Anything that draws that kind of attention sells ads, so they'll milk race stories, no matter how mundane, to tap that audience. This is what commercial media thrives on-- they trump up stories on hot button issues, and we sit transfixed, thinking we're watching a "transracialism story", but all we're really doing is getting set up for the soap commercial. And as long as they see that transracialism (or whatever) captures our attention, they'll milk it for the purpose of the sales pitch. That Pavlovian response.

That's why I can't see this level of media attention waning -- it's working too well. More likely we'll see more such stories. I guarantee there are myriad cub reporters out right now looking for the next Rachel Dolezal or the next McKinney, and their next career steppingstone.

Welcome to USMB by the way. Don't mind me, I wax loquacious on media.

I thought you were gonna say something about how media uses its power to achieve political/civil goals

Naaah. Media -- meaning commercial media -- doesn't have those. All it cares about is feeding its maw.

Do you think media plays a role in which civil/political matters get addressed by the government?

I think it certainly plays a huge role in which matters get ignored. What gets covered on the other hand, is going to mostly be what they can sell soap with.

This clip still speaks volumes -- watch the transition starting at 12:20....

​

If that doesn't blatantly spill the beans on what their priorities are, nothing does.

In regard to what gets ignored. Do you think they would choose not to cover an issue that would sell a lot from covering? If so what kind of issues?

What immediately springs to mind is the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TelCom 96). This was a major piece of sea-change legislation that redefined how commercial broadcast media works especially as regards oligolopolic control -- dramatically shutting down the decentralized locally-focused system we had (this was where ClearChannel got the legal obstacle removed so that it could bloat itself into twelve hundred radio stations). Obviously this had major implications for what "media" means, and obviously the same mass national media we depend on to "report" things, also stands to gain from it financially. Yet while this was going on in Congress, that media spent a total of nineteen minutes covering the issue. Nineteen minutes from all sources combined. It's not the same issue as the PATRIOT Act mentioned above, but it shares the aspect of being a complex issue vital to the public where commercial media has a conflict of interest and fails its role.

That issue wouldn't necessarily "sell" a lot, not without priming the pump a bit, but it was clearly worth more than 19 minutes.

On the other hand, who the fuck cares about Justin Beaver's DUI, Kim Kardashian's ass or how Michael Jackson died, yet these get the money shot, regularly. We replaced news with soap opera. I have no doubt they'd like to have us forget altogether what news actually is, whereupon the entire concept can be shoveled into the Memory Hole to become an Unevent that never happened -- "we have always been at war with News". How much we lose while they're pissing away valuable time on Justin Beaver and Rachel Dolezal and of course the endless race-baiting, sex-baiting, miscellaneous tongue-cluck baiting etc, is immeasurable but clearly that's time something of substance is getting shut out.

 

[Pogo]

No. Being black is not a right, and I wish black people would quit shoving their perverse choices down our throats.

Wait, now Rachel Dozell is black again? Or did you just blame blacks for what a white girl did?

He made a funny -- read carefully, it's a gay allusion.

 

[Liffy]

I went to bed at this point last night, picking up here...

I thought you were gonna say something about how media uses its power to achieve political/civil goals

Naaah. Media -- meaning commercial media -- doesn't have those. All it cares about is feeding its maw.

Do you think media plays a role in which civil/political matters get addressed by the government?

I think it certainly plays a huge role in which matters get ignored. What gets covered on the other hand, is going to mostly be what they can sell soap with.

This clip still speaks volumes -- watch the transition starting at 12:20....

​

If that doesn't blatantly spill the beans on what their priorities are, nothing does.

In regard to what gets ignored. Do you think they would choose not to cover an issue that would sell a lot from covering? If so what kind of issues?

What immediately springs to mind is the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TelCom 96). This was a major piece of sea-change legislation that redefined how commercial broadcast media works especially as regards oligolopolic control -- dramatically shutting down the decentralized locally-focused system we had (this was where ClearChannel got the legal obstacle removed so that it could bloat itself into twelve hundred radio stations). Obviously this had major implications for what "media" means, and obviously the same mass national media we depend on to "report" things, also stands to gain from it financially. Yet while this was going on in Congress, that media spent a total of nineteen minutes covering the issue. Nineteen minutes from all sources combined. It's not the same issue as the PATRIOT Act mentioned above, but it shares the aspect of being a complex issue vital to the public where commercial media has a conflict of interest and fails its role.

That issue wouldn't necessarily "sell" a lot, not without priming the pump a bit, but it was clearly worth more than 19 minutes.

On the other hand, who the fuck cares about Justin Beaver's DUI, Kim Kardashian's ass or how Michael Jackson died, yet these get the money shot, regularly. We replaced news with soap opera. I have no doubt they'd like to have us forget altogether what news actually is, whereupon the entire concept can be shoveled into the Memory Hole to become an Unevent that never happened -- "we have always been at war with News". How much we lose while they're pissing away valuable time on Justin Beaver and Rachel Dolezal and of course the endless race-baiting, sex-baiting, miscellaneous tongue-cluck baiting etc, is immeasurable but clearly that's time something of substance is getting shut out.

You just gave me an idea for a thread

 

[bendog]

In this case wasn't being black wrong? Jus sayin. Lol

 

[WelfareQueen]

I hate humanity a little more every day. So, gender is a choice, race is now a choice. That transanimal thread is starting to look like a real thing.

Rachel Dolezal has a right to be black Opinion - CNN.com

what is race?

Aye, there's the rub. Race is fairly straightforward but when we speak of "black" and "white" -- in this country at least -- we may mean a biological category, or a culture, or often, both.

Is being "black" a right? Culturally, sure.

Weird how many people here see it only in terms of skin color.

According to biologist "race" is not a valid construct. So why is our Government and those on the left so race obsessed?

 

[Liffy]

I hate humanity a little more every day. So, gender is a choice, race is now a choice. That transanimal thread is starting to look like a real thing.

Rachel Dolezal has a right to be black Opinion - CNN.com

what is race?

Aye, there's the rub. Race is fairly straightforward but when we speak of "black" and "white" -- in this country at least -- we may mean a biological category, or a culture, or often, both.

Is being "black" a right? Culturally, sure.

Weird how many people here see it only in terms of skin color.

According to biologist "race" is not a valid construct. So why is our Government and those on the left so race obsessed?

Come on... You can't say something like the first part of your post without examining it. I mean explaining it

 

[Pogo]

Do you think they would choose not to cover an issue that would sell a lot from covering?

It isn't all about money, it's about influencing the narrative. As you can see today, the money is simply a perk, not the primary goal.

Wrong. You have it backwards. As I keep noting on these pages, NOBODY makes money selling a narrative or an ideology. There's no way to cash that check. What makes money is selling ads -- period. And ads are sold by getting attention, and attention is grabbed most effectively by sleaze and subterfuge and scandal. And the more you can sell it from that angle, the more eyeballs you can score, and the more eyeballs you score (which we call ratings), the more you can charge for your ads. It ain't rocket surgery --- it's simply lowest common denominator psychological manipulation.

Make your fake News Theater into an electronic form of a National Enquirer, and although you won't be serving any public interest, you will be making money. Which is precisely what Rupert Murdoch did with his venture Fox Noise. He knows the psychology. That's cash money, capital, income, proceeds, takings, jackpot -- profit. Commercial media exists, like any commercial business -- to make a profit. It clearly does not exist to serve any entity outside its own self -- not even We the People, who grant it the right to exist.

Of course which stories they might choose to milk will also suffer from selection based on conflicts of interest; if General Electric owns NBC, simultaneously while it cultivates military contracts and nuclear power, well you're not going to see a whole lot of people questioning a war or reporting on nuclear accidents. If Occupy Wall Street positions itself against Establishment Institutions, you either won't see it covered (if it can be ignored) or if it can't be ignored, it'll be reported on in the most negative, sleaziest terms. That's called playing defense.

"Influencing the narrative" has no paycheck. There's no unwashed proletariat shoveling their savings into AmbienCR and SUVs and Burger King cash registers for the purpose of buying "a narrative". Not in a narrow, political-spectrum focus it doesn't. The only 'narrative' is self-perpetuation. Whatever sells better for media -- gets covered by it. Media makes more money if George W. Bush is in the White House than it does if Al Gore is in it. And it makes more money if Barack Obama is in there than if McCain or Romney is in it. Bush and Obama give you angles you can milk. Doesn't matter what their politics are, they're barely distinguishable anyway. But with Bush, if you order now we'll throw in the malaprop angle, the warmonger angle, the father-avenger soap opera, absolutely free. With O'bama you get all kinds of racism angles, plus as a bonus track, Obamacare. You just don't get those angles with a Gore or a McCain That's what Media cares about ---- ROI.

 

[Misty]

I hate humanity a little more every day. So, gender is a choice, race is now a choice. That transanimal thread is starting to look like a real thing.

Rachel Dolezal has a right to be black Opinion - CNN.com

She's a mental case.

 

[Pogo]

I wanted to know how it relates to how the news is using it.

Okay. Pogo referred to coporatist influences on the media. The corporatists are like Ivan Pavlov. The media, the dog. They feed them stories in exchange for money. It happens so much and so often, the media becomes used to it, or "conditioned" to this type of journalism. That pretty much leaves no room for honest journalism. Money influences news, and thusly the rhetoric.

No, that wasn't my analogy at all.
Pavlov is the media -- WE are the dog.

 

[Pogo]

I hate humanity a little more every day. So, gender is a choice, race is now a choice. That transanimal thread is starting to look like a real thing.

Rachel Dolezal has a right to be black Opinion - CNN.com

you have the right to be a moron, if you give up that right you become conservative.


since minorities have special rights and privileges, she could be in a lot of trouble with the law, except she's a leftist so therefore will be protected, no matter how much she lies.

honestly, why does she still have a job? does the naacp have no integrity?

I put this question out in the Silly Thread and no one ever touched it. Here's your change to not-touch it too...

-- Rachel Dolezal is female. If the goal is some kind of affirmative Action thing -- she doesn't need "black". She already qualifies.

And the corollary to that -- where does the NAACP -- or Howard University, which was also brought up -- ever filter white people out of their population, or membership, or student body, or staff?

That question was never answered either. That's because no answer exists. So your basis is a blithering bag of butthurt bullshit.

 

[Meathead]

She lived in a tee pee and hunted with a bow and arrow, possibly the first black woman to do so.

Seriously funny stuff!

 

[Pogo]

Didn't I already fucking tell you he answered that question?

No, you didn't. You said "I already fucking know." Did I know he answered the question? Perhaps not, since I have that individual on my ignore list. That happens to be a down side of putting someone there.

Alas poor TK... I knew him well...

​

Guess there happens to be a down side of putting oneself in one's own echo chamber and going

Who knew.